I would like to thank whoever accepts this debate. Lets make it a good one!
I am for the preservation of endangered species. As the most dominant species on the planet, it is our responsibility to protect the weaker species. In the Bible story of Adam and Eve, God gives us the task of taking care of all of the creatures of the Earth. If we did not protect the animals of the earth, there would be none left!

To begin this argument, Id like to void one of my opponent's arguments. She referenced the Bible as a reason for the preservation of animals. Seeing as this is not a commonly accepted source of fact and is widely disputed, it should not be taken into consideration as evidence.
=========================
I agree that in a perfect world, we should preserve those species weaker than us. However, it is not a perfect world. Any human interactions with the environment should be closely monitored. Everything is connected in the ecosystem and anything changed will affect another aspect of it.

Say a brown bellied swallow was becoming extinct. We breed two together to preserve the species and they become numerous. Unfortunately, the favorite meal of this bird is the red herring. This fish becomes endangered because of the overpopulation of this bird. In result of this fish's thinning population, numerous other species begin to die out because of their reliance of having it in their diets. Everything in the ecosystem is in a precarious balance.

Secondly, it is only natural selection. Some species are weaker than others and, in result, they do not survive. Hundreds of species are thought to have become extinct long before humans came along. It is simply a part of life and an unfortunate part of the world. It would be almost selfish to allow one weak species to survive while consequently harming others just because we would feel bad not having this species around any more.

Lastly, my opponent says that "if we did not protect the animals of the earth, there would be none left". The ecosystem does a remarkably good job of maintaining itself. Humans aren't the only thing that keeps species alive, but are, rather, one of the largest factors to their endangerment via home production, hunting, and logging.

I conclude by saying that it is not our "responsibility to protect the weaker species" but more our responsibility to allow nature to run its course.

4stfire argues that "it is not a perfect world". Well why cant it be? The only reason that our world is not perfect is because of 4stfire's own do-nothing attitude. Perhaps it would be a perfect world if, instead of being content to let things be, we as a society made conscious efforts to help those weaker than us.
Also, if natural selection was a real factor in this argument than why have the smallest and weakest of creatures such as worms and ants survived so long?
I end my argument saying that in order to create the perfect world that 4stfire believes unattainable, we must preserve our endangered species.

My opponent makes a valid argument (albeit peppered with ad hominem evidence).
I, as much as anyone, want to live in a perfect world, however, this vision is sadly childish. It is childish to assume possible that mankind putting a hand in crafting their own perfect species balance would be inconsequential and it is childish to consider underpopulation of animals to be the sole cause of an imperfect world. Both are impractical. If, for one happy second, underpopulation was the only problem in the world, then my opponents perfect world argument would be valid. However, it is not valid because the survival of endangered species will not grant world peace nor end world hunger, so it cannot be said that protecting those weaker than us will bring about a perfect world.
Also, my opponent's natural selection contradiction is invalid as well. Natural selection is a very large part in the survival of species and certain species survive due to number and survival instincts. If a breed of earth worm was to spend the majority of its time on top of the soil, collecting berries and aphids, then natural selection would inevitably end that species. However, worms spend the majority of their time underground, ensuring their survival. That is how natural selection works.
I will end by saying that Millymuffin has presented no conclusive evidence to validate her arguments and I stand on my position that nature should be allowed function un"assisted" by humans.

I would like to apologize if anything in my previous arguments came off as offensive. There is little that I would like to say at this point. I simply would like to pose the question as to what is the right thing to do? Should we let our animal friends die or help them out in times of trouble?
Endangered species should be preserved.

"What is the right thing to do?" That is what I have been arguing this entire time. Is it more right to let your child grow up in pampered isolation, or let him suffer a few cuts and bruises to better prepare himself for the outside world? We must look at the bigger picture. Our ecosystem cannot be pampered for our own selfish wants.
Like any growing child that we care about, we must let our ecosystem suffer the cuts and bruises of a lost species, in order to let it be successful when we aren't there.

Con should probably win this debate, but it's in spite of his implicit subscription to the discredited Balance of Nature, Prescriptive Darwinism, and Strong Gaia, which I'll address in no particular order and with no particular completeness. First, nature itself cannot be "fit" or "weak" in the sense of natural selection. Individuals, families and occasionally larger groups (though never whole species) can be fit or weak, but only at competing or struggling against eachother and in no sense that should saddle other species (like humans) with moral responsibility. For example, though we might be tempted to interpret an increase in Species A relative to Species B as the former being more fit, we must remember that neither species is attempting to increase its number, neither absolutely nor relatively, nor survive nor reproduce, nor anything at all as a species. It's a collection of selfish individuals and families that would gladly doom their species to extinction (of course, not even the fittest have the human capacity to predict, much less prevent, extinction) if it meant a short-term advantage over their greatest rivals: other members of the same species. That's why speciesist strategies, though often in the better interest of every member of the species, are unstable, weak. And if a single species can be "fit" at little more than killing itself, draw your own conclusions about nature, the unorganized collection of all species and even the nonliving. Such non-organism is also chronically unbalanced, an empirical fact. Save an endangered species, and you're effecting no more radical a change in population change momentum than what nature left untouched (by humans, that is; there's no other species on Earth that gives a damn about the mythical "balance of nature")regularly experiences. Sure, it's bad for the endangered species's prey and the latter's other predators, but why are they any more important? They have sharper claws or faster legs? Why care?